Apple Considering Switch From Intel Chips in Future Macs

[Quu]

Originally Posted by turtlez

You can't tell the future and if you have anything to go by look at the iPhone 5 doubling in performance over the S3. Obviously Apple knows what they are doing when they can get a dual core to double a quad core with the A6.

But all they have done is produce a chip based on established ARM designs, tweaked it and put in a GPU made by another company. Then they have Samsung manufacture the chip for them.

And in the benchmarks I've seen the Quad Core Samsung S3 beats the iPhone 5 in some CPU benchmarks but loses miserably on browser performance tests and GPU performance. This isn't such an amazing feat when you consider the A6 is brand new out and the CPU in the S3 is already a year old. The Nexus 4 already beats the iPhone 5's performance and Google is touting it as the fastest phone in the world with regards to processor performance.

The point I was getting at before is Intel is the lead chip designer in the world they have billions of dollars to spend on it and it is almost all they do. Even car manufacturers know you can't design the entire car yourself you use engines and tires from other companies whose business is specific to that task.

Even Apple knows this which is why they've partnered with Motorola, IBM, ARM and Intel for their processors and chipsets over the years.

To be honest I think this rumor is a load of rubbish. Intel's Haswell chips are looking to bring wattage down to under 10 watts next year with performance much higher than any ARM design around. Even something custom made by Apple. And Intel has the benefit of being 64-bit from the start with built in killer graphics.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by nuckinfutz

Folks ..there are plenty of people that run Macs and don't give a flying $%^&*( about running Windows.

Business are moving to tablets and even Microsoft is supporting ARM.


X86. Put a fork in it.

That is an extremely early declaration of anything.

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

There is nothing surprising about Apple having a portable codebase if a bunch of open source hippies can do it.

But ARM ? ARM ? What's the value there ? Performance per watt is no better than Intel. The reason ARM processors are so energy efficient today is because they lack the sheer number crunching capabilities of x86 chips. Intel proved with Medfield that x86 is as power efficient as ARM, if they also sacrifice number crunching. There's even an Android phone that runs on a Medfield SoC!

The ARM kool-aid is always good for page hits.

Originally Posted by nick_elt

Let's look at the bright side tho, at least there will be an easy port for angry birds. ...lol

Bleh people are over birds. Perhaps they should make something with undead goats instead.

[camomac]

I've been thoroughly this before. I bought a top of the line G5 only to have it be a paper weight now. I'm sorry but if apple does this I will really have to rethink apple. I really don't like what they've done with the retina MacBook "pros" and the new iMacs. I really doubt I will give my hard earned money to any company that changes it's architecture every 10 or so years.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by faroZ06

VB does not emulate other processor architectures. Sure, they could easily write an ARM version of it, but you would only be able to run Android, Windows RT, and other ARM-supporting systems on it.

Writing a version of VB that emulates other processors would be a whole different project.

I've always been kinda confused by the differences between a VM and an emulator. I guess a VM is an environment speaking the same machine language as the host machine, whereas an emulator can speak and pretend to be whatever it needs to be, provided it has enough processing power to do so, right?

Originally Posted by subsonix

And it's open source. Let's amuse ourselves and imagine for a second that this rumor is true, then I think it's safe to say that what they use will be equivalent or better than intel's offering, in which case it would not set your computer on fire.

If I'm recalling something I vaguely remember reading a long time ago right, an emulator has to be at least 3 times as powerful as the machine its emulating to work as well as the original hardware, assuming you've got the most efficient coder in the world writing in Assembly. So for an ARM processor to run x86 apps, it'd have to be incredibly efficient, supremely powerful, and likely clocked to currently unheard of speeds to do it well.

They can already emulate a Pentium 1 on an ARM processor, but an iCore? It'll be years before they're able to achieve that.

[A Hebrew]

Good rumor, I don't think apple has the balls to do this though.

[winston1236]

Originally Posted by nuckinfutz

Folks ..there are plenty of people that run Macs and don't give a flying $%^&*( about running Windows.

Business are moving to tablets and even Microsoft is supporting ARM.


X86. Put a fork in it.

Lol businesses are turning to tablets? I work at one of the biggest companies in the world and i have yet to see a single company tablet.

[cult hero]

The switch to Intel was one of the best things Apple has done in terms of making their computers really, really useful. Not that they weren't before, but going from PPC to Intel and suddenly having virtualization at my fingertips and the ability to run Windows (if you're a web developer not testing in IE, you don't know what you're doing) made these machines the best all-in-one work machines I've ever owned.

A lot of stuff is coming around with ARM ports (Linux, for example and even Windows) so a switch to ARM in the future might work just fine, but man... in the short term?

No way.

Although I suspect the ARM rumors are going to swim around as long as the Intel ones did. Even if it happens, it seems unlikely to be coming in the very near future.

[hachre]

I'm excited to buy my next MBP with eight or so iPhone five processors inside.

[joelypolly]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

That's a nice idea in theory, but as far as I know it'd be impossible to implement in actuality.

The biggest problem is that ARM and x86 speak entirely different languages. What works on one can't work on the other without an emulator or VM mediating. Both of which will consume massive amounts of power just by running.

The other way would be to mode switch between two OSes that are able to talk to the CPU they're designed for. This would be like bootcamping between iOS and OSX really, and isn't all that beneficial for a mobile device. It's alright for tech savvy people, but confusing for the regular folk who want a device that...wait for the cliche...just works.

With hardware abstraction layer such as a hypervisor it should be possible and because Apple builds that OS itself it should be much more consistent experience. Also it is currently possible to have Xcode produce Universal binaries that function with both code paths (this is how debugging iOS applications the Mac current works).

The current gen of Apple design processors such as the A6 is roughly equivalent to an Intel Atom processor. 2 or 3 years down the line it should be consistent with a entry level Core i3 or i5 at least.

[Mikey7c8]

Originally Posted by Quu

To be honest I think this rumor is a load of rubbish. Intel's Haswell chips are looking to bring wattage down to under 10 watts next year with performance much higher than any ARM design around. Even something custom made by Apple. And Intel has the benefit of being 64-bit from the start with built in killer graphics.

I'm not sure that's the point. When you can build something the size of an iPad with a processor/gpu combination that can handle that resolution, pushing a bit further to a Macbook Air enclosure a couple of generations into the future doesn't seem that far fetched.

I don't for one second think it's for everyone, but I can certainly people will find a use for and buy an macbook air based on some future generation of Axx chip with a 20 hour battery life.

[JayLenochiniMac]

Originally Posted by camomac

I've been thoroughly this before. I bought a top of the line G5 only to have it be a paper weight now. I'm sorry but if apple does this I will really have to rethink apple. I really don't like what they've done with the retina MacBook "pros" and the new iMacs. I really doubt I will give my hard earned money to any company that changes it's architecture every 10 or so years.

That's moot anyway. You can't run the latest OS on any macs more than a few years old.

[dbo43867]

Originally Posted by iSteve-O

Not again. Remember When you decided to drop Google Maps and make your own? How did that turn out?

Yeah, there's the typical media (negative) hype and a beautiful new maps interface, and they're not looking back.

[scottrichardson]

What difference does it make? If it's as fast (or faster) when they do it, and it runs OS X and apps, and you get your work and play done, then who cares what hardware is under the hood?

[chorner]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

Intel already has Xeon motherboards out that support 8 cores per chip, upwards of 16 cores in a dual CPU configuration. Such as the HP Z820, which offers everything you've listed and more, and is readily available for around the same price as the Pro. Well, everything besides Thunderbolt, which makes you wonder why Apple hasn't been putting pressure on Intel to release a pro-line chipset that supports it. I mean it is Apple's baby and all, one of their big selling points. You'd think they'd be doing everything they can to have it included in their top dog machine. Hmm.

The main reason why people aren't buying the Pro now is because they're paying top dollar for hardware that's 3 years out of date. Why pay $2000+ for that, when you can get more up to date hardware for the exact same price?

Wrong again for these reasons:

- there's no native USB3 chipset support on that board you linked
- only (2) native Intel 6Gb/s SATA ports
- again, no Thunderbolt

Apple doesn't like to use 3rd party controllers for essential board-level features like USB and SATA etc. As far as Intel delaying on Thunderbolt, you could ask why they fudged the X79/C600 series chipsets and scaled them back from the original plan - but I doubt they'd answer you

People will buy the MacPro if they require one for their workflow and not wait. It's only those who already have one, or are simply browsing forums like these speculating on releases that will hold off. Professional business and people who rely on these professional machines buy what they need, now, with few exceptions if they happen to know or be tipped off on an 'immediate update' of the lines.

The MacPro available now still has plenty of power available and certainly can hold up until 2013 where it has been stated already from Tim Cook to expect the MacPro (and something 'special') in 2013.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by joelypolly

Also it is currently possible to have Xcode produce Universal binaries that function with both code paths...

Okay, that's something I didn't know about. Not being a programmer at all, I always assumed you had to compile code to one language or another. If you could make universal binaries, then it could be possible.

...though the OS would have to be able to distinguish between the two, and assign it to the proper processor. So it still wouldn't be easy, I don't think.

[scottrichardson]

Originally Posted by hachre

I'm excited to buy my next MBP with eight or so iPhone five processors inside.

Hmm, don't forget your general sense of 'snappiness' is going to come from how fast ONE core is on ONE CPU (unless Apple does some serious work with the OS foundations), and the GPU.

So 8, 24, 100 processors won't make a difference if the base single core is still underpowered compared to current CPU's.

[Yamcha]

This is a bit like what Microsoft has done with Microsoft Surface RT, where none of your old x86 applications work..

Which means developers need to start developing for the new ARM processors in order for their applications to run under Windows 8 RT..

That's why I have problem with Apple even considering to adopt these ARM processors..

[subsonix]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

...though the OS would have to be able to distinguish between the two, and assign it to the proper processor. So it still wouldn't be easy, I don't think.

It's already been done several times, last in the PPC to x86 transition. Mach-O support fat binaries, meaning one executable file can support several architectures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_bin...27s_fat_binary

[nuckinfutz]

Originally Posted by Yamcha

This is a bit like what Microsoft has done with Microsoft Surface RT, where none of your old x86 applications work..

Which means developers need to start developing for the new ARM processors in order for their applications to run under Windows 8 RT..

That's why I have problem with Apple even considering to adopt these ARM processors..

Apple's solution is far better. The code changes needed will be less than the PPC to Intel transition.

Remember. iOS has battle tested most of the large frameworks and most of them already run on ARM and Intel.

[nsayer]

The funny thing about every Intel processor that currently exists is that when you first apply power to them, they start as 8086s. As they boot, they are led by the BIOS through a series of evolutions until they finally arrive as x86_64 class CPUs.

I believe that, at least in their unprotected 32 bit form, the memory maps of all x86 PCs - and even macs - still have memory mapped I/O from 640K to 1M. It's the MMU that makes this "hole" go away for ordinary process space.

[ThunderSkunk]

Originally Posted by Yamcha

This is a bit like what Microsoft has done with Microsoft Surface RT, where none of your old x86 applications work..

Which means developers need to start developing for the new ARM processors in order for their applications to run under Windows 8 RT..

That's why I have problem with Apple even considering to adopt these ARM processors..

That's why I don't have an issue with it. We rely on a couple pc-only CAD applications, & the macs ability to run windoze via virtual machine is the only reason we can use Apple computers at all. However, if software vendors are going to be writing all the applications to work on arm for of anyway, & we're told they will, then there's no compatibility consequence if Apple makes the move,

[dmbfan41]

Apple should know better than to go down this road again. I understand creating their our CPUs for portable devices, but who would ever buy a macbook, macbook pro, mac mini, or mac pro if this were the case? You're basically stuck running OSX just like in the PowerPC days.

[HurryKayne]

The day Apple would try to,after great loss in sellings we would see someone to resign.
Maybe we will see some Hybrid Mac like the MacBookAir but seriously i'm not gonna wait that long I WANT MY 680MX IMAC NOW !!!!!

[faroZ06]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

I've always been kinda confused by the differences between a VM and an emulator. I guess a VM is an environment speaking the same machine language as the host machine, whereas an emulator can speak and pretend to be whatever it needs to be, provided it has enough processing power to do so, right?

According to Wikipedia and the definition I always used, "emulation" is a vague term that just means that it tries to resemble another system. Then I say "processor emulation" if it's actually pretending to be another architecture and "system emulation" if it's something like an x86 Mac running an x86 version of Windows.

[SeattleMoose]

Please stop trying to be "an island". You will just end up being bad at a lot of different things. Been there and done that with processor line changes...ugly!!!